Drug Reform Battle Heats Up in New York: Pataki Package
Would
Increase Marijuana Penalties, Democrats Offer
Alternative
Bills, Activists Don't Like Either
Version
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/177.html#newyorkdruglawsEfforts
to amend the "Rockefeller laws," New York's draconian
drug sentences, are
coming to a head as the state legislature
prepares to deal with opposing
plans offered by Republican Gov.
George Pataki and Democratic State Assembly
Speaker Sheldon
Silver. Both proposals are a curious mix of
sentencing
reductions, mandatory treatment programs, and
tough-on-crime
rhetoric designed to ensure that Empire State politicians
can
soften some of the Rockefeller laws' harsh aspects while not
appearing
"soft on drugs."
While the conventional wisdom is that some changes to
the
Rockefeller laws are possible this year, New York drug reformers
are
increasingly skeptical about the nature of any changes and
some are beginning
to prepare a long-term strategy for repeal,
not mere reform, of the
Rockefeller laws.
"The Assembly's proposal, especially in comparison to
the
governor's, is a major step on the path to significant reform,"
said
Robert Gangi of the Correctional Association of New York
(
http://www.corrassoc.org), "but it's still
well short of the
mark. It is important that any changes aren't
cosmetic or a step
backward," he told DRCNet. "We don't want and won't
support a
bill that is dressed up as reform, but essentially maintains
the
status quo."
Nicolas Eyle of ReconsiDer (
http://www.reconsider.org), a
New
York-based citizen drug reform group, also remains
skeptical.
"Pataki's proposal was pretty poor from the beginning," Eyle
told
DRCNet, "and the Democratic proposal, while better, is
frankly
disappointing."
"There is an increasingly important issue here
for drug
reformers," said Eyle, "and that is the issue of
incrementalism
versus going for the brass ring. A lot of people are
delighted
to get whatever crumbs they can, but my rule of thumb is that
if
the legislation doesn't require a paradigm shift, then I'm
not
supporting it. Legalization would be a paradigm shift,
medical
marijuana is a paradigm shift, tinkering with sentences or
forcing
people into treatment is not."
Randy Credico of the William Moses
Kunstler Fund for Racial
Justice (
http://www.kunstler.org) sees little of value
in either
proposal.
"They both suck," he told DRCNet. "I want to
end the war, not
have it continue as a Cold War. People have to create
a tough
opposition to these proposals, or we'll end up with a bad
reform.
I'm willing to wait another year and mobilize for real
reform."
The increasingly skeptical views of drug reformers come as
both
Gov. Pataki and the Democratic majority in the Assembly are
finally
providing detailed proposals.
"The devil is in the details," Gangi told
DRCNet.
The detailed bill that Gov. Pataki released last week would
seem
to indicate that the oscillating governor has swung back toward
the
camp of state prosecutors, who bitterly oppose any reforms
that would reduce
their power. While still attempting to wear
the reformer's cap by
calling for some sentencing reductions, the
governor would also end parole
for drug offenders, increase some
penalties for major traffickers, and
dramatically increase prison
sentences for possession or sale of large
amounts (more than 20
pounds or sale of more than two pounds) of marijuana,
and would
increase penalties for those arrested on drug charges in
public
parks. (Visit
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/167.html#pataki
for our
coverage of the governor's initial remarks announcing
his
intention to introduce a reform package.)
The Democratic proposal
goes considerably further than Pataki's,
extending sentencing discretion to
Class B felons, who make up
the majority of people charged with drug crimes,
providing for
expanded mandatory treatment programs, and doubling the amount
of
drugs necessary to qualify for Class A felonies, with their
harsh,
mandatory sentences.
The Assembly's sentencing changes would:
*
Increase possession thresholds required to meet the most
serious Class A-I
and A-II felony sentences. This change would
not be applicable to major
drug offenders;
* Increase penalties for major drug traffickers from
15-25 years
to life to 15-30 years to life;
* Increase the sentences
for adult offenders who sell or attempt
to sell drugs over the
Internet;
* Reduce mandatory sentences for most class A-I felons who
are
not major drug traffickers who currently are subject to mandatory
life
terms. Courts would retain the discretion, however, to
impose the
current higher minimums and maximum life sentences,
even for persons who are
not major traffickers. Offenders with a
prior violent felony conviction
would not receive any sentencing
reduction;
* Allow a limited group of
eligible inmates to petition the
sentencing court to have their sentences
adjusted to reflect
sentencing under the plan; and
* Allow Class A-I
convicted felons with no violent felony
conviction to be sentenced
alternatively, with the consent of the
prosecutor, as Class B felony
offenders.
* For nonviolent, lower-level drug offenders, the Assembly
plan
would reduce the minimum sentencing requirements but would
keep
maximum sentences unchanged.
(The Assembly's press release
detailing the proposal and
background materials are available online at
http://assembly.state.ny.us/Press/2001/20010314/
and
http://assembly.state.ny.us/reports/drugreform/
respectively.)
"This situation here is a real mess," Eyle told
DRCNet. "I'm
afraid that they're going to pass some of these changes
and then
if we try in the future to get a better bill, they'll say,
'we
already addressed that.' Passing half-way reform measures
will
only hurt efforts for real reform."
"If the Democratic bill
passed in its entirety, that would be an
improvement, whereas Pataki's
changes would only make an
infinitesimal difference," said Eyle. "But I
don't think the
Assembly bill will pass as is."
The Kunstler Fund's
Credico is ready to take it to the streets
again, as he has repeatedly with
demonstrations at the statehouse
and at the offices of prosecutors opposing
any reforms.
"This is not reform, this is unacceptable," he told
DRCNet.
"We're calling for a massive demonstration in front of
Pataki's
New York City office on May 8th. If we can't get a decent
bill,
it will be time for continued activism and civil disobedience.
We'll
start pushing for jury nullification, we'll urge Legal Aid
to end plea
bargaining. We could bring this system to its
knees."
"And that
Pataki wants to throw people in prison for marijuana is
outrageous," fumed
Credico. Those people aren't hurting anybody.
Leave them
alone."
Gangi, if a little more sanguine than Credico, was no
more
pleased with the proposals.
"The battle has been joined, the
lines have been drawn," he said.
"Our coalition, the Drop the Rock Campaign,
will fight to abolish
the Rockefeller laws, restore judicial discretion in
all drug
cases, and to establish the retroactivity principle,
where
inmates can petition for review of their sentences."
"We need
repeal. If it isn't repeal, we aren't supporting
it."
================